Rating: 
Summary: Fills in the holes from college
Review: Let's say I was not exactally a model student once I'd discovered beer.I get the impression that the folks who wrote this book were not ideal students either; however, they seem to have figured out who knew and loved each subject. As a result, this book really clicks along. As a technical major, I would have liked if the authors had did a little better by including Newton's laws of motion and a basic explaination of statistics and calculus, both as crucial as being able to tell Keats from Shelly. Other than that, the book is a riot.
Rating: 
Summary: Completely Oversold, Irritating, Disappointing
Review: Written in an irritatingly flippant style, this book falls far short of its promise. It is poorly organized and indexed which ultimately results in frustrating those wishing to quickly glean succinct information. Instead, it is filled with "cleverly" written tidbits that more often than not miss the entire point of the subject matter. Don't waste your time.
Rating: 
Summary: Almost perfect
Review: Basically I loved the concept of this book and there is no other like it. I think for the number of topics they had to cover (the more the better!) they did a great job. The only criticism I have about this book is that it seemed to be VERY biased. For a book that is supposed to be general information it shouldn't be. Example: they would categorize artists in their descriptions as good or bad ("not worth looking at"). Um....that's for us to decide right? Another example: When discussing the differences between Democrats and Republicans they might as well have just edited the whole thing and written: "Democrats good - Republicans bad".
So on that note it makes me read EVERYTHING they are writing with some aprehension. Bottom line: good book but too biased. For those of us who are non student-types the humor is appreciated.
...
Rating: 
Summary: An Incomplete Book
Review: If the authors had spent half as much time giving information as they do being flippant, we'd have a book that covers twice as much material as this one does.
Rating:
Summary: Missing the point
Review: I think those who are critical of this book would benefit from reading the introduction. If they did so, they would find that it is not really meant to replace an in-depth knowledge of the topics covered. On the contrary, this book is meant as something of a sampler: it gives just enough to pique the reader's interest, and the reader is then expected to research further the topics in question on his or her own. To criticize the discussions in this text for being shallow is thus completely misguided, I think. I believe that it's similarly unfair to criticize the authors for not covering every topic under the sun -- it is an 'incomplete' education, after all. I also am surprised at the level of annoyance other reviewers have expressed at the tone of the writing in this book. Unlike these reviewers, I found the book humourous and the writing suitably light, considering the stated aims of the authors. I highly recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, maybe, but . . .
Review: I would buy this book used, but not new.
It attempts, with partial success, to address the age-old problem of gain (amplification) vs. bandwidth (breadth) or specialization (learning more and more about less unless until one knows everything about nothing) vs. generalization (learning less and less about more and more until one knows nothing about everything). Since this problem can never be solved this book can never truly satisfy.
Certainly anyone with pretensions to general knowledge and literacy across many subjects will benefit from having this book available as a general reference piece. But the precious, self-conscious writing style is difficult to swallow, and editing out some of the resulting clutter would have made the entire book clearer and shorter and would have made room for other essential subjects.
Why am I being picky? Okay, look up 'sculptors' or 'Auguste Rodin' as examples of necessary general knowledge. Not there, not even hinted at. No Rodin. No sculptors at all!
Rodin reportedly died of pneumonia when he fell ill having asked the French authorities for living quarters heated as kindly as the space in which they kept his work, but was refused. Jones and Wilson have equal myopia in many areas. Maybe the lesson is that one should not attempt the impossible.
Maybe they'll include sculptors in the next (obviously they'll do it) revision. I hope so. I'd like them to research and verify my information about Rodin's death, among other things.
Rating:
Summary: A must for your bookshelf
Review: I enjoyed the introduction to this book more than any other intro! The authors state that the reason for the book's creation is "it feels good to be grounded" I'm not grounded yet so I've been reading and rereading this book. It has an easy structure for guiding you through a liberal arts education - introducing or reintroducing info and knowledge and opinion. It's up to you to do parallel reading and dig deeper. Yes, the tone is flippant but it's fun and a superb resource for things fuzzy, forgotten or never learned.
Rating:
Summary: Completely Fantastic
Review: This book is good. REALLY good. There is a quick synopsis of almost everything that you ever need to know, and it goes to a depth of more than "just hearing of it:" it tells you information. I don't know what the naysayers see wrong with it. The authors have attempted, quite successfully, I might add, to distill all of Western Thought (and a good portion of Eastern Thought, as well) into one volume. The tone of the writing is somewhat flippant and childish at places, but the positives of the book outweigh the negatives. How does "viz." differ from "scil.," "i.e.," or "e.g."? What's the difference between the Odyssey and the Iliad? Stalin and Lenin? Gentry and nobility? An opera and a symphony? It's all in here. If you only have one reference book in your collection, make it this one.
Rating:
Summary: Great reference for writers and, well, everybody else too
Review: Want to brush up on philosophy? Want to know - in 10 seconds - what's the big deal with Mark Twain? Want a quick answer to a question about the political system of Mexico? This is the book for you. Incredibly accessible, quick reading, and just thorough enough, it's a great resource for writers and a VERY cool book for anyone just wanting to get past the headlines of the newspaper ("just what IS Hinduism, anyway?"). Get it and watch your IQ points go up a notch or two, or, if nothing else, be able to nudge into that water cooler conversation with authority.
Rating:
Summary: "Complete" Waste of Time
Review: If I had looked further beyond the promising dust jacket I would have noticed that this flippant tome is nothing more than Name Dropping 101. Packed with lists of knowledge that the authors think everyone "should" know, this book insouciantly prepares those lacking in depth to hobnob with their equally shallow brethren at the next swank cocktail party. Anyone who considers themselves even mildly intelligent should resent being told which scene in Citizen Kane they should claim as their favorite or why they shouldn't overtly admire Andrew Wyeth. A book such as this only contributes to our cultural "dumbing-down" by assuring that NOBODY really cares enough to know what they are talking about. The blithe conversational snippets of knowledge that Wilson and Jones promote in their book undercut true intellectualism while making the claim that it is fine to be ignorant as long as OTHER PEOPLE think you are smart.
| 
